Hearst Playground story in Current

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At a community forum yesterday in Cleveland Park, Mayor Bowser went out of her way to note that a pool at the Hearst Park site is a Mary Cheh idea, not something the administration decided.

It's funny, in October I was at a meeting in a different part of Ward 3 where the Mayor spoke, and when she was asked about a controversial subject she was very quick to say it was Cheh's idea. Something makes me think they may not see eye to eye.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At a community forum yesterday in Cleveland Park, Mayor Bowser went out of her way to note that a pool at the Hearst Park site is a Mary Cheh idea, not something the administration decided.

It's pretty revealing that Bowser was willing to throw Cheh under the bus on the Hearst pool snafu. It confirms what folks have been hearing, that the Department of Parks & Recreation is just going through t

he motions, and really thinks that Hearst Park just is not a workable site for a pool.

Except that is where one of the two pools called for in the DR master plan west of the park is going to go. Look for it to open in the summer of 2018!

The preliminary plan shows a pool that is no bigger than a tennis court, probably because nothing bigger will fit. Apparently it would be the smallest public pool in DC. It seems like a waste of money and a lot of trouble to construct a glorified kiddie pool.

And a soccer field that is slightly over half the size of the current one to boot.

It's the understatement of the year to say that the trade-off proposition with a Hearst pool is not exactly compelling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At a community forum yesterday in Cleveland Park, Mayor Bowser went out of her way to note that a pool at the Hearst Park site is a Mary Cheh idea, not something the administration decided.

It's pretty revealing that Bowser was willing to throw Cheh under the bus on the Hearst pool snafu. It confirms what folks have been hearing, that the Department of Parks & Recreation is just going through t

he motions, and really thinks that Hearst Park just is not a workable site for a pool.

Except that is where one of the two pools called for in the DR master plan west of the park is going to go. Look for it to open in the summer of 2018!

The preliminary plan shows a pool that is no bigger than a tennis court, probably because nothing bigger will fit. Apparently it would be the smallest public pool in DC. It seems like a waste of money and a lot of trouble to construct a glorified kiddie pool.

Cool, then eliminate a second tennis court and install a bigger pool!

[Anonymous]

It seems that Mary Cheh has written off whole parts of her ward:

Hearst Park neighbors despise her for foisting on everyone a plan to destroy much of the park.

McLean Gardens despises her because she is forcing a homeless shelter next door. (The police despise her for the same reason).

John Eaton parents despise her because of her continuous failure to support the school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At a community forum yesterday in Cleveland Park, Mayor Bowser went out of her way to note that a pool at the Hearst Park site is a Mary Cheh idea, not something the administration decided.

It's pretty revealing that Bowser was willing to throw Cheh under the bus on the Hearst pool snafu. It confirms what folks have been hearing, that the Department of Parks & Recreation is just going through t

he motions, and really thinks that Hearst Park just is not a workable site for a pool.

Except that is where one of the two pools called for in the DR master plan west of the park is going to go. Look for it to open in the summer of 2018!

The preliminary plan shows a pool that is no bigger than a tennis court, probably because nothing bigger will fit. Apparently it would be the smallest public pool in DC. It seems like a waste of money and a lot of trouble to construct a glorified kiddie pool.

Cool, then eliminate a second tennis court and install a bigger pool!

If you look at the footprint for even the small Volta pool, concrete deck and pool house, it would eliminate much more than just two tennis courts at Hearst. One of the websites has the footprints superimposed. And that's the footprint for basically the smallest DC pool around. DPR should find some empty property that is not already used for other recreational activities and put a pool there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
If you look at the footprint for even the small Volta pool, concrete deck and pool house, it would eliminate much more than just two tennis courts at Hearst. One of the websites has the footprints superimposed. And that's the footprint for basically the smallest DC pool around. DPR should find some empty property that is not already used for other recreational activities and put a pool there.

Because DPR has binders full of empty property just lying around in upper NW waiting to have a pool installed on it?

[Anonymous]

It's pretty obvious the Mayor Bowser and Commissar Cheh do not see eye to eye on a pool at Hearst. I wouldn't buy that new swim suit just yet!

[Anonymous]

You think the Mayor is going to care? More people want the pool. She would rather cater to them than the NIMBYs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You think the Mayor is going to care? More people want the pool. She would rather cater to them than the NIMBYs.

You can disparage and dismiss 150 avid park using families as "NMBYs" all you want, but they're energized, motivated and vote. If Hearst had acres and acres of unused green space it might be different, but a pool necessarily involves sacrificing existing park uses and tree canopy. Park users don't see value in that tradeoff. Bowser clearly telegraphed that the Hearst site selection is all of Cheh, as the DPR professional staff themselves aren't sold on Hearst.

[Anonymous]

150 avid park users < everyone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You think the Mayor is going to care? More people want the pool. She would rather cater to them than the NIMBYs.

The Mayor doesn't care about Ward 3 at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You think the Mayor is going to care? More people want the pool. She would rather cater to them than the NIMBYs.

The Mayor doesn't care about Ward 3 at all.

This is my impression as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It seems that Mary Cheh has written off whole parts of her ward:

Hearst Park neighbors despise her for foisting on everyone a plan to destroy much of the park.

McLean Gardens despises her because she is forcing a homeless shelter next door. (The police despise her for the same reason).

John Eaton parents despise her because of her continuous failure to support the school.

I agree with this. I suspect she has decided that she isn't going to seek re-election in 2018 so she can just do whatever she feels like. I think she's looking around for things that will be her "legacy" which is why she's so determined to build stuff at Hearst and Palisades without thinking them through.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems that Mary Cheh has written off whole parts of her ward:

Hearst Park neighbors despise her for foisting on everyone a plan to destroy much of the park.

McLean Gardens despises her because she is forcing a homeless shelter next door. (The police despise her for the same reason).

John Eaton parents despise her because of her continuous failure to support the school.

I agree with this. I suspect she has decided that she isn't going to seek re-election in 2018 so she can just do whatever she feels like. I think she's looking around for things that will be her "legacy" which is why she's so determined to build stuff at Hearst and Palisades without thinking them through.

Mostly it just makes me think she hates Cleveland Park.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:150 avid park users < everyone else.

You make the highly erroneous assumption that "everyone else" is for digging up Hearst Park. I am not part of the 150 neighbor's group (and don't live adjacent to the park), and would not be impacted by traffic and parking impacts. But by I believe it would be a shame to sacrifice a good portion of the park, including much-used existing facilities, for this pool. And I know a number of others who feel the same way, and none are the nearby neighbors. Just because you make categorical claims doesn't make them so.